Drilling unearths more questions

Our opinion: As more concerns about fracking surface, it’s clear that the decision on whether to allow it must rest on science, not spin or pressure from either side.

Valid or not, there has been an air of inevitability surrounding the drive to vastly expand natural gas drilling in New York. The state’s lips may say “if,” but its body language has seemed to be shouting “when.”

With yet more credible sources warning New York not to rush in, we were encouraged by Governor Cuomo’s latest signals on this issue. His executive budget was silent on the controversial process known as high volume horizontal hydraulic fracturing. Its future, he says, is undecided.

That’s as it should be. New York, one of six states that lie on the gas-rich Marcellus Shale, is clearly not ready to give drilling a green light.

The deeper we drill into fracking, the more questions there seem to be. Some of the latest to be raised:

According to 250 doctors and other health professionals, more study is needed on the potential health effects, particularly on children, associated with the pollution from drilling thousands of gas wells.

Three Cornell researchers contend that shale gas involves at least as much greenhouse gas, if not more, than coal, contrary to the industry’s depiction of it as a clean fuel. Another Cornell scientist disputes his colleagues’ claims.

Fracking has been tied to earthquakes in Great Britain, possibly explaining a rise in tremors in several U.S. states where drilling is going on.

The Environmental Protection Agency, in its comments on DEC’s review of fracking, questioned the state’s ability to oversee the industry and its plans to protect water supplies. Fracking, which uses millions of gallons of water mixed with sand and chemicals to fracture rock and release trapped gas, has been linked to contaminated drinking water supplies in Pennsylvania and Wyoming.

These and other concerns aren’t coming from armchair environmentalists, but from scientists, doctors and other professionals. And there may be more red flags coming, as DEC begins reading the more than 40,000 public comments it estimates it has received. The EPA, meanwhile, plans to release an interim report on fracking later this year.

Until the questions are answered — not by industry-bought ad campaigns nor environmental activists’ assumptions, but by science — fracking must remain an “if” in New York.

7 Responses

You might want to check who is paying for some people to make an issue about drilling: Given the slant drilling from Pennsylvania into New York it is reasonable to conjecture that out of state money is being used to enrich nonresidents. If you think that environmentalists cannot be bought, reflect how they were committed to scenic beauty until windmills started to get government money.

The fracking argument resembles the climate change argument in at least one aspect – only the energy company’s scientists are claiming that fracking is not a threat the environment and clean water – just as only the oil industry’s scientists (and I use the term loosely) are claiming that global climate change is not a legitimate issue. These companies have plenty of money to promote their agenda and stand to gain much monetarily by painting a rosy picture of fracking. The victims of fracking have nothing to gain financially by telling their stories. When greed is a player, we cannot trust the energy companies to be forthcoming about the real threat to environment – it is not in their financial interest to do be forthcoming. There are plenty of fracked landowners with contaminated drinking water and plenty of ex-drilling company employees who contradict industries claims of safety to give us pause. Water is much more important than natural gas. NY is rich in fresh water – the shale isn’t going anywhere. Let’s not jump into a bad decision because of short-sighted greed and natural gas companies propaganda.

I am from Northeast Pennsylvania I have been active in the no frack movement and have long followed the “activist” organizations across your lovely state. I have always found them to be scientifically grounded in their arguments and presentations. In fact, they are ahead of the argument.

They are passionate about defending this helpless Earth,

They are equally concerned about all the citizens who are going to be victimized. Just look at all the spills, illegal dumpings, accidents, deaths, bad air, bubbling rivers, worthless land, methane in water, cancer clusters, crime increases, on and on.

I have long envied your state’s moratorium. I would like to see one in our state some day. New concerns seem to mount with each passing day.

5 If i could move out of state I would because it is too highly taxed and too highly regulated and too highly governed. Frack away, I say – maybe some tax revenues will help solve a lot of the states problems and maybe, just maybe the cry wolf lefties who rant about every energy policy that supposedly isn’t green will get over it. What about the clean coal energy the President said he was going to support (he said this while campaigning for the presidency)? Oh, that’s right, he also said your energy costs would go up incrementally during his time in office. And why, because he is ramming the green agenda down our throats. I think we can still use the resources we have in a more efficient and conscientious way all while fostering growth in alternative energy sources, but he wants to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Sigh…

Is hydro-fracking dangerous? Can someone provide me with the facts on how many fresh water wells have been contaminated by hydro-fracking around the US. Let’s guess…is it 1 out of 10 wells have contaminated a well? 1 in 100? 1 in 10,000? 1 in 2,000,000?